The BIGGEST problem with my DP2M....

Let's accept for sake of this discussion that there is a visible difference between Foveon or Bayer.

In your mind, is this difference caused by Foveon breakthrough technology or a flaw in the Bayer method? In other words, do you think there is something new and wonderful about Foveon technology or do you think Bayer is just broken?

There is a distinct difference is tone about these options to me - one is saying that what is special about Foveon is that it is not Bayer, the other is saying that Foveon is actually special in its own right, it is doing something no other technology can offer.

There are some rather obvious ways to test this:

1. B&W only

Compare the B&W output from Foveon to the output of the Leica Monochrome. Neither use CFA arrays or AA filters, so the only differences under discussion are plain ordinary CCD vs 3 layer Foveon

2. Colour

Compare Foveon to scanned film. Does the famous Foveon detail, sharpness, micro contrast, 3D look and any other magical property assigned to the technology stand out in a comparison with film?

If we conclude (for instance) at the end of this that Foveon has no obvious stand out qualities compared to film or to a monochrome CCD, then I think it would be reasonable to conclude that the the problem Foveon technology is dealing with is overcoming flaws in the Bayer process that make Bayer images worse than other techniques (such as film, 3 CCD designs or exposing a mono sensor multiple times through filters and combining the results).

To me, if we had this result, the tone of the praise heaped on Foveon output ought to change. Instead of eulogising Foveon itself, we should be criticising Bayer flaws and we should regard Foveon as one possible solution to those problems. We should also be motivated by any other alternative process that overcomes Bayer flaws as we have a mutual self interest as photographers. Foveon might not be the only alternative. We could also rename the Forum to the Anti-Bayer forum!

If we conclude something different, that Foveon adds something to the party rather than merely overcoming Bayer weaknesses, we have a whole different ballgame and a whole new arena for exploration....

D

richard stone wrote:

Meanwhile, I am firmly convinced that some people simply cannot (or is it will not?) "see" any difference between Bayer images and those taken with a Foveon sensor, and I think they are mostly blind, but still, and indeed in part because they cannot see the difference, more to be pitied than scorned. No amount of arguing, no amount of well produced sample images, will convince them to open their eyes or their minds.